3 May 2015

23:59

That Scottish Labour slogan in short: "Vote for us to avoid an illegal referendum which nobody is proposing which we would shoot down immediately." #WinningHere.

Work for you?

On Andrew Neil's Sunday Politics sofa, senior Labour MP and shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Chris Leslie, just told the BBC that his party would block any further independence referendum in the next parliament. Neil suggested to him that #indyrefs remain "reserved matters" under the Scotland Act. "Absolutely," Leslie responded, "there is not a way that we would want to see a repetitious repeating of something that has been decided for a generation."

A couple of days ago, I asked Scottish Labour leader a fairly simple question: does he or does he not believe that Holyrood has the legal authority to hold another independence referendum? Answer came there none. But Leslie's comments this morning confirm what Mr Murphy would not: the UK Labour Party clearly still believe and maintain that the Scottish Parliament currently does not have the power to hold a second referendum, that Westminster consent is necessary, and that Westminster consent would not be forthcoming in the next five years. No minority Labour government, no majority Labour government, no Tory and no coalition government would currently be prepared to put its name to another section 30 order, along the lines of the text adopted after the Edinburgh Agreement, paving the way for a second poll.

But here's big Jim, still galloping around the country, giving it his "24 hours to save the Union" routine. “You only have 24 hours to stop a second referendum. The clock is ticking,” a leaked leaflet yelped. "Only Labour can STOP ANOTHER REFERENDUM." Caps lock is, clearly, cruise control for TERROR.

As his helpful colleague just made clear to Andrew Neil, however, Murphy's threats are all empty. And he knows they are empty. His colleagues south of the border know they are empty. The wisp, the spectre, he hopes to frighten the electorate with has no substance. None of this ought to be news. It echoes Miliband's earlier statements that he would not accept another referendum any time soon. But if there is zero prospect of a second referendum in this Westminster parliament, how the devil can you make that the central plank of your campaign against the SNP in the last two weeks of the campaign? If you maintain that the Scotland Act - here since 1998 - blocks an independence poll, why on earth do we need Scottish Labour MPs to "stop" it?

Several consequences logically flow from Leslie's comments, none of which seem particularly helpful for the Labour Party. If you dp want a second referendum at some point in the future, I doubt you'll much appreciate this high-handed talk of "blocking" and permission refused. But then again, January's big plan to "reach out to" those who disagreed with the Labour leadership on the referendum seems to have gone the way of all things already. Instead, democratic socialists are despatching epistles to Tories in their constituencies, while Jim "I have never been a unionist" Murphy hopes to survive in East Renfrewhshire by attracting unionist votes.

Alternatively, if you are swithering about voting for the Nats because of concerns that a second referendum might result - despite Nicola's repeated denials - you can heed these comments and rest easy. Whether or not you vote for the Labour Party, the Tories, the Liberals or for the SNP, no second referendum will result in this parliament. An SNP vote is risk-free on that score. Even if you disbelieve the First Minister, and sense that plots for a second plebiscite are brewing - Leslie reassures you - the unionist majority in Westminster can and doubtless will ensure that the question cannot be put. The Union doesn't need the People's Party to save it once again. Constitutional law as already done the trick. Spectre, exorcised.

If you didn't know better, you'd think that the left hand of the Labour party doesn't know what the right hand us up to. (Or, as one reader just suggested, that left and right hands are busy, fighting each other...)

13 comments
:

Everything said here about the second referendum "threat" also applies to the other big scare story being peddled by British Labour in Scotland - full fiscal autonomy (FFA). In the last day or two we have seen a letter that Jim Murphy is sending to pensioners in Scotland telling them that the SNP has "pledged" to introduce FFA and that this would involve "scrapping" the UK pension.

It's all lies, of course. In the first place, there is no way for the SNP to introduce FFA. It simply can't happen. Unless whichever of the Labour/Tory duopoly that forms the next UK Government introduces the necessary legislation, there is no way that the SNP could possibly vote for FFA. And that simply isn't going to happen.

And even if it did, we know FFA would have no significant implications for pensions. During the referendum campaign we were assured by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) that independence would not affect pensions. So why would FFA?

The "threats" of a second referendum and of FFA are both no more than phantoms. And yet these phantoms are at the very core of the British Labour campaign in Scotland.

Indeed. Even more strongly, actually -- it is crystal clear that Holyrood cannot legally accrue to itself decision-making over the remaining aspects of the economy, taxation, etc. There is at least an arguable case - rejected confidently by the UK government and parliament - that Holyrood may have power to call a referendum on its own authority. But Jim and his colleagues don't accept that argument.

I agree Andrew that there is no realistic prospect of a second referendum taking place any time soon, if indeed at all. Instead, I think that the three unionist parties will hold firm to the position that there should be no second referendum for at least a generation. This would rule out the prospect of another referendum until the 2030s/2040s at the earliest. The three unionist parties would be able to justify this position on the basis of the promises made by the SNP leadership that last year's referendum would be a "once in a generation" opportunity. On the practical side of things, this position would also allow all three parties to play the waiting game. The idea here is that support for the SNP and the momentum for independence will eventually dissipate over time, especially when it becomes clear that it will not even be possible to hold another referendum until around the 2040s. In addition, as with all government parties, the SNP will eventually be held to account by the electorate for their failings in office. Despite the SNP's high level of support at this particular election cycle, I do not see how they could possibly sustain a majority government in the Scottish Parliament from 2011 until the 2040s. As SNP fortunes fall, those of the other parties must inevitably rise. The result of this will no doubt be a Labour led Scottish Government. If you will forgive me some further future gazing, I suspect that once in government Labour would use every lever of power at their disposal to prevent a second referendum from taking place ever again. This would involve introducing supermajorities and replacing the Scottish Parliament's additional member voting system with full on proportional representation in order to prevent the SNP from leading a majority government with less than 50% of the vote. In these circumstances, I think that the SNP and their followers may have to wait a bit longer than a generation before a second referendum takes place.

I have a longer piece brewing on these issues -- one for after the general election, I think. For myself, however, I think an earlier referendum would be a disaster -- and we must resist the old and young men and women in a hurry...

What a pile of negativity you both are! Support for independence has barely moved since September 18th, but it has moved upwards (48-49%). I agree that holding another referendum now would be a disaster, but within three years support could be a lot higher if we continue to press for more powers and make the case for indy. The task of the SNP must be to hold Westminster to account for its failures and explain the limitations of devolution.

You pair sound like you have given up. Disgusted at your defeatism. You would never win a war!

It isn't defeatism, devorgilla -- but a different analysis of the underlying situation. I don't agree with you about a three year period. Nothing will bugger up the long campaign more effectively than an ill-timed second referendum. The decision about if and when to strive to hold one will be perhaps the toughest strategic choice Nicola (or some future successor) has to make. There's no glory in getting it wrong. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

I'm with you on an ill-timed referendum. Another No would be curtains. Any fool can see thst. But your discourse above focuses on the negatives. OK, so maybe that's defensive: you are trying to identify where we are vulnerable. Where we don't have a legal leg to stand on. But as is often said, politics trumps law every time. Three years would be optimistic, but not impossible, depending on what the unionists have in store for us. And on the strategy of indy Scots and what we manage to secure under Smith - if anything.

What the indyref indicated was that the Whitehall elite were prepared to throw everything at us in order to prevent our exit, by terrorising, not only the vulnerable and weak, but a whole swathe of the middle ground with any modest wealth to lose, by currency threats. They will do so again and again. Only by gaining real control over our resources and banking system will the middle ground be prepared to jump.

One major problem with your "three years" plan is that there is no legal mechanism that the SNP can use to hold a second referendum. All three leaders of the unionist parties have ruled out holding a second referendum during the next 5 year parliamentary session - even if this fact has been conveniently ignored by Scottish Labour during this campaign. Without the consent of the UK Parliament there can be no second referendum - this would remain the case even if the SNP wins an increased majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament at the 2016 election. If the SNP tried to hold an illegal referendum, this would simply be struck down by the courts before a single vote could be cast - this is the exact same situation that is being faced by the nationalists in Catalonia. In reality, it was only the benevolence of David Cameron which allowed the original referendum to take place at all. His plan was to settle the debate once and for all. As the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the UK by a comfortable margin of over 10% on a massive turnout (with over 2 Million people voting No), the unionist parties can reasonably argue that the issue has been "settled" - at least for a while anyway.

On the issue of whether it would be wise to hold a second referendum within 3 years, I agree with Andrew that it would be folly to hold another referendum so soon after defeat in 2016. If independence is to be a success the SNP will have to convince a significant proportion of No voters to switch to Yes. They cannot scrape over the line on 50.1% - that would be a recipe for disaster. Instead, I think that at least 55% would be required in order to avoid intense divisions opening up between Yes and No voters. This would require the SNP to persuade around 400,000 people to challenge their self-identity as citizens of the UK and to fundamentally reverse their understanding of what constitutes their country. This is no small task. I think that this point has been well understood by Nicola Sturgeon. Indeed, I would say that she has so far followed a wise path in her leadership of the SNP. Despite the barbs that come with the rough and tumble of politics, she has effectively opened a hand of friendship to Labour and offered to work constructively with them in the governance of the UK. Despite Ed Miliband's current protestations, his will to power will likely result in Labour and the SNP working together on a vote by vote basis. If Nicola Sturgeon can ultimately make a success of this arrangement, this may help her win the trust of some of the No voters who are currently open to persuasion.

Parallels are rarely exact of course, but the second Quebec Referendum was called by the Parti Quebecois in their full expectation that they would win - in the event the No vote was 50.58%. As in the Scottish referendum, most immigrants voted No, including the large Scots-Canadian community - if those Quebecois identifying as Scots had voted yes Quebec would be ‘libre’.

I don’t actually understand from wiki who had the legal rights to say allez in the first place but surely would have been hard for Ottawa to say Nay

The legalities of the Canadian situation are complex -- see the "Clarity Act" -- but the outcome is a cautionary tale for insufficiently self-critical Yessers, who think that all that is currently needed is to table another referendum. I completely reject that logic.

If the SNP gain a substantial majority of Westminster seats then the guidance of the wise will be needed to respond to the democratic wishes of the Scots nation. Leaving the response in the hands of fools will lead to further difficulties.

By no means am I suggesting that the dominant legal analysis is the end of the story -- indeed, I am currently writing a legal chapter for an #indyref book which vigorously disputes it. But politically? We'll have to be canny, and clear-thinking, and take a long view, to my mind.

Long view! Long b****y view? We have been arguing for home rule since 1888!! Things have accelerated in the last sixteen years since we won back our parliament, but if we don't get independence soon there will be no point. There will be nothing left. TTIP and ISDS will sell us to US corporate power and the Central belt will be fracked to f***.

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.